Skip to main content

Currently Skimming:

6 Conclusions and Recommendations
Pages 124-136

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.


From page 124...
... Long-established procedures for determining research priorities and allocating research funds in federal science agencies are increasingly being questioned for several reasons. • Tighter funding: In an environment of projected static or declining research budgets for other than national defense and homeland security, proposals to open up new areas of scientific inquiry, support currently dynamic fields, and support the increased costs of existing lines of research become 
From page 125...
... • Developments in analytical methods, databases, and statistical and data mining techniques that promise better ways to assess the impacts of lines of research on knowledge and agency societal objectives. These pressures on standard decision processes come from inside and outside federal science agencies.
From page 126...
... CONCLUSIONS 1. The scientific base for conducting valid and accountable assessments of the progress of scientific fields and for supporting research policy decisions is seriously underdeveloped.
From page 127...
... For example, although directly contributing to major discoveries remains the gold prize of federal science agencies, more indirect methods, such as supporting improvements in databases and analytic techniques, integrating knowledge across fields and levels of analysis, calling attention to underresearched questions, and facilitating the entry of new people to work on old and new research problems, can yield high scientific and societal returns. By promoting scientific analysis, integration, and development, research managers can contribute indirectly to discovery and explanation.
From page 128...
... 4. Both working extramural scientists and NIA program managers have essential perspectives to contribute to research priority setting.
From page 129...
... However, we think that wise integration of analysis and judgment may yield better results than either approach unaided by the other. We consider it possible to constitute expert review panels that draw on their own experiences and insights, augmented by quantitative data on the outputs, outcomes, impacts, productivity, or quality of research, to arrive at better informed and more systematically considered expert judgments about the progress and prospects of scientific fields than they could reach without quantitative data.
From page 130...
... Thus, we recommend adopting processes that can collect the best available information about the progress and prospects of the areas of science being considered; use systematic procedures to consider, interpret, and discuss the import of this information for the decisions; involve extramural scientists, agency officials, and user communities in the decision processes; encourage them to consider the information in the light of all of BSR's strategic objectives; give advisory group discussions significant weight as input to decisions within the institute; allow science managers to reallocate funds among lines of research in light of advisory group judgments and their own; and allow the institute to learn from the results of its decisions. Three principles should guide BSR practice in setting priorities across research fields: 1.
From page 131...
... In addition, we think that explicit consideration will make decisions in BSR more accountable and contribute to high-quality communication between researchers and science managers. The principle should be applied to recommendations made by BSR's advisory council and other groups organized to advise on priority setting.
From page 132...
... The process of reconsideration should include reflection on the value of the analytical information provided about scientific progress to inform those decisions and the adequacy of the methods for producing that information. RECOMMENDATIONS We make five recommendations for implementing the above principles to develop a stronger scientific basis for research priority setting and to strengthen the basis of priority setting in BSR both before and after research results come in.
From page 133...
... 2. NIA should periodically conduct a general assessment of the BSR Program with respect to its overall adequacy for supporting the program's scientific outcome and societal impact goals.
From page 134...
... One year after completion of each area-based assessment, BSR staff should report on decisions reached and actions taken that involve priority setting among research areas and portfolio allocation within areas. The report should explicitly discuss the justification for program decisions that might seem inconsistent with the assessment's recommendations.
From page 135...
... Research on the roles of science agency decisions in scientific progress might include studies of the role of officials in science agencies as entrepreneurs and stewards of scientific fields; studies of how expert advisory groups, including study sections and advisory councils, make decisions affecting scientific progress; studies of the effects of the organization of advisory groups on their success at promoting interdisciplinary and problem-focused scientific activity, and ultimately at improving scientific outcomes and societal impacts. In the case of BSR, the research should focus on progress in fields of behavioral and social science related to aging.
From page 136...
... Research pursuing this objective should explore and assess techniques for structured deliberation, some of them including the use of indicators of scientific progress and potential, for retrospective assessment and for priority setting. It should include studies to apply techniques for structuring deliberation to the research priority-setting tasks facing BSR, possibly using simulated advisory groups; trials of such techniques in which review and advisory panels are instructed or trained to focus their deliberations on how each research field might contribute to specified program objectives or goals, including both those related to scientific quality and to mission relevance; studies of attempts to adapt the NIH Consensus Development Conference model to research priority setting; comparative studies of advisory panels or simulated advisory panels of different composition to test hypotheses about the limitations of current review panels in recommending research priorities; and studies of the effects on decision making of instruction and training of advisory panel members to consider the full range of specific BSR and NIA objectives.


This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More information on Chapter Skim is available.